# Your smoking/smokers' rights update...



## ChronoB (Nov 4, 2007)

The mods may move this thread, and if that's necessary then that's fine. But I think pipe smokers specifically need to hear about these things. How many pipe smokers enjoy a bowl in the car or with a cup of coffee? If you don't get involved you may not be able to for long:

In Oregon you can be cited if you smoke in your car with a child present:
Lighting Up With Children in Car Banned by Oregon Smoking Law

Starbucks doesn't want your business even if it is legal to smoke outside of one:
Starbucks to forbid smoking within 25 feet of its stores | Fox News

Heartened by all the pipe smoking in movies lately? The UN isn't:
World Health Organization's Continuing Attempts to Usurp American Sovereignty | RedState

I didn't start this thread to start a political debate or have a "you should vote for these guys" argument, so please don't go there. I just wanted to inform fellow pipers of some of the latest moves against people that enjoy tobacco, because I think we tend to avoid things like this. We turn to our briars to escape it. But I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that sooner or later our own homes wouldn't be a safe haven for smoking (and if you live in an apartment that's already the case for many). If this gets political it should only be to encourage each other to get involved. Pay attention to the news for smoking/tobacco items, join the CRA (CRA - Cigar Rights of America | Home) and CTR (http://www.tobaccorights.com/ctr/advocacy/default.aspx); and from your local city councilman or small business on up to your senator and large corporations - make your voice heard!


----------



## The Nothing (Mar 22, 2013)

I'm in Oregon so saw that one go through. They move that bill very quickly. IMO, it's one of those "no brainer" things. I don't know a cigar or pipe smoker that would smoke with a child in the car. However, not to point fingers, I do see it a lot with cigarette smokers. It's unfortunate. In the end, because of the nanny state, this can only lead to more legislation against smoking.

I also saw the one about Starbucks. All I could thing about is this image (and countless other similar cigars-in-starbucks images). I've never been a fan of the place (despite growing up in seattle)


----------



## Mad4Cigars (May 30, 2013)

I love that pic


----------



## drastic_quench (Sep 12, 2008)

Meh.

We're less than 1% of all tobacco smokers - easily. There's no use pretending that all of this isn't entirely about cigarettes. And screw cigarettes, they're awful and they're killers. People back in the day should have never started inhaling tobacco. Yes, it absolutely sucks that pipers get lumped in with cancer stick fiends and addicts, but that's life. Craft beer connoisseurs have to abide by the same puritanical, nonsensical Blue Laws that were brought about by the temperance movements' response to stinkin' drunks. That's life.


----------



## Herf N Turf (Dec 31, 2008)

While you've tailored this to pipers, it still adresses the legal and political agressions upon our sport. I'm therefore moving it to the tobacco legislation forum.

As ever, let's make sure we don't step over the line into politics.


----------



## freestoke (Feb 13, 2011)

drastic_quench said:


> Craft beer connoisseurs have to abide by the same puritanical, nonsensical Blue Laws that were brought about by the temperance movements' response to stinkin' drunks. That's life.


Ironic, since Carrie Nation wanted everybody drinking beer! (Instead of hard liquor.)


----------



## Tobias Lutz (Feb 18, 2013)

ChronoB said:


> Starbucks doesn't want your business even if it is legal to smoke outside of one:
> Starbucks to forbid smoking within 25 feet of its stores | Fox News


I'm not sure how this one is to be enforced when many of their stores are in "strip-malls" where 10' from their door is not even included in their lease?

I agree with drastic_quench though, this is entirely about cigarette smokers, not pipe or cigar smokers. I think it is a little early to get overly concerned about bans on our products (or even stiffer regulation), but you are certainly right to suggest that cigar and pipe smokers should stay abreast of developments and voice their opinions to the powers that be. Of course this is really true for anything that is of importance to you, but unfortunately apathy is the calling card of this generation.


----------



## Emperor Zurg (May 6, 2013)

Notice in that pic, neither of the cigars are lit... I call b00shyt.

I don't go to Starbucks. I've no interest in their over priced, burnt tasting coffee. And FTR, I'd also never fire up a cigar in a restaurant regardless of whether if was legal or not. It's just too damn inconsiderate IMO to drown someone else in my smoke... and if you ask me, lots of the recent legislation against smoking is directly the result of horribly inconsiderate cigarette smokers. This is not to say that all cigarette smokers are inconsiderate, but a heck of a lot of them are.

I also don't wander around smoking either pipes or cigars. Any smoking I do is either in my shop, on my property or in my yard. Any government goon that tells me I can't do that will be ignored. ... unless they choose to push it. But that's another matter.


----------



## dutchjim (May 17, 2013)

Tobias Lutz said:


> I agree with drastic_quench though, this is entirely about cigarette smokers, not pipe or cigar smokers. I think it is a little early to get overly concerned about bans on our products (or even stiffer regulation), but you are certainly right to suggest that cigar and pipe smokers should stay abreast of developments and voice their opinions to the powers that be. Of course this is really true for anything that is of importance to you, but unfortunately apathy is the calling card of this generation.


I concur with your statement, though I'm getting worried that innumerable agencies and groups are now targeting cigars. I think we must get involved in dealing with incremental rules and laws, all with one purpose: Cessation (eventual) of cigar smoking.


----------



## Just1ce (Dec 9, 2011)

Though sometimes we can see certain legislation as being "reasonable" we need to be very careful in allowing certain things to pass. I could care less about starbucks as they have no ability to infringe upon my ability to smoke a cigar, but joining the CRA or CTR is a good step to ensuring that we are all able to not only enjoy our cigars/pipes but also AFFORD them as well. There are a lot of people in high places that "disapprove" of our enjoyment of tobacco and I like to support those that are willing to do the legwork to combat this stuff. Tobacco is seen as the low hanging fruit with which to tax into oblivion. Cigarettes are the product used to spearhead these efforts, but pipe tobacco and cigars are lumped in with it and thrown under the bus.


----------



## ChronoB (Nov 4, 2007)

I have to say I'm shocked and disappointed at some of what I'm hearing here. I'd like to address a few of those things individually.



> There's no use pretending that all of this isn't entirely about cigarettes. And screw cigarettes, they're awful and they're killers. People back in the day should have never started inhaling tobacco. Yes, it absolutely sucks that pipers get lumped in with cancer stick fiends and addicts, but that's life. Craft beer connoisseurs have to abide by the same puritanical, nonsensical Blue Laws that were brought about by the temperance movements' response to stinkin' drunks. That's life.


Vilifying cigarettes or the people that enjoy them won't get you anywhere. We need those folks to help. And no, it isn't all about cigarettes. Municipalities very rarely make exceptions, and then its usually just for cigars so the big wigs can still enjoy them. In the eyes of the anti-tobacco zealots they and the product they use are no different that cigar or pipe smokers. And comparing the anti-tobacco movement to the temperance movement isn't appropriate. We already fought that war. They lost and we won. Most of what's left are common sense laws and regulations, with some still worth debating (like 21 year drinking age) or some that are gone or soon on their way out (Sunday blue laws). Hell, alcohol was once considered a detriment to health and now all we hear is how good moderate consumption is for you. Despite the fact that they claim to be trying to protect people's health the anti-tobacco activists are careful never to suggest or enact a prohibition for tobacco. They know the effects that would have (and would hate to lose the tax revenue). Instead they chip away at our rights to make, advertise, buy, use and enjoy tobacco, all the while spreading falsehoods about research and painting us as addicts or fools. All this occurs because we let it.



> I think it is a little early to get overly concerned about bans on our products (or even stiffer regulation)


Really? Two of the metro counties where I live recently passed outdoor smoking bans. I can start a fire with charcoal or wood at my local park, but I can't light a pipe. In one county the penalty for smoking in a park is $1000 fine or jail time. In another it is illegal to smoke in line at an outdoor ATM. And how's this: "Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed legislation Monday that would prohibit citywide retailers from showing tobacco products". No need for tin art or cigar band art. A lot harder to reach new customers if they can't see your product, and a lot harder to stay in business. This is already happening in other countries.

I guess I fixate on it too much, but I see a very bleak future for people that enjoy tobacco in any form based on what's going on. And it seems like most cigar/pipe smokers are content to let it happen or can't be bothered to get involved. I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Tobias Lutz (Feb 18, 2013)

ChronoB said:


> Really? Two of the metro counties where I live recently passed outdoor smoking bans.


Do these include private residences (like sitting on your porch or standing on your lawn)? Or are they bans against smoking in outdoor public areas (parks, shopping center parking lots, etc)? Not being familiar with where you live I don't really know how to go about looking this up.


----------



## The Nothing (Mar 22, 2013)

Tobias Lutz said:


> Do these include private residences (like sitting on your porch or standing on your lawn)? Or are they bans against smoking in outdoor public areas (parks, shopping center parking lots, etc)? Not being familiar with where you live I don't really know how to go about looking this up.


"What's the law now? You can only smoke in your apartment, under a blanket, with all the lights out? Is that the rule now, huh?!" - Dennis Leary


----------



## ChronoB (Nov 4, 2007)

Tobias Lutz said:


> Do these include private residences (like sitting on your porch or standing on your lawn)? Or are they bans against smoking in outdoor public areas (parks, shopping center parking lots, etc)? Not being familiar with where you live I don't really know how to go about looking this up.


No they don't include your private residences (yet). I live in the Atlanta metro area, and all the counties here (Fulton, DeKalb, Gwinnett, Cobb, etc) have similar restrictive outdoor bans.


----------



## Tobias Lutz (Feb 18, 2013)

The Nothing said:


> "What's the law now? You can only smoke in your apartment, under a blanket, with all the lights out? Is that the rule now, huh?!" - Dennis Leary


Leary is hilarious



ChronoB said:


> No they don't include your private residences (yet). I live in the Atlanta metro area, and all the counties here (Fulton, DeKalb, Gwinnett, Cobb, etc) have similar restrictive outdoor bans.


This is where I suppose I might differ from some. I appreciate the idea of the "slippery-slope" argument, but I don't believe it holds much water in making decisions regarding laws like this. I can only speak for myself, but I have no issue with a ban on outdoor smoking in parks, parking lots, walking malls, etc. Do I think pipe smoke is generally palatable- I hope so, I smoke a couple bowls a day. But if the cost of never having to smell cigarette smoke, and more importantly, never have my children exposed to it when we're going about our business is to ban all smoking in public indiscriminately- I'm okay with that. I agree completely that a ban on smoking on your own property would be ridiculous, and I realize some will take the ball of a "public" ban and try to run in that direction. I also know that you don't legislate out of the fear of what may eventually come to fruition. You legislate using reason and you simply must trust that reason will prevail if the pendulum attempts to swing too far to the extreme. Without trying to open a whole other can of worms, I will offer this example. I support background checks, I also support private gun ownership. I do not fear the loss of the later simply because legislation exists mandating the former. All this said- who the hell really knows what will happen- Washington in particular went mad a long time ago and I'm sure the insanity is slowly dripping down to the state and local level. :smoke2:


----------



## The Nothing (Mar 22, 2013)

And here I thought I had already pointed fingers at California. Guess I passed up the earlier opportunity.

In CA (Just as it's to be in OR) - January 1, 2008, smoking in a moving vehicle while in the presence of a minor (18 years or younger) is an infraction; the charge is not serious enough to be pulled over, and only can be cited along with a stricter offense, such as a moving violation or traffic accident
-City of Belmont, October 9, 2007, banned in parks and other public places, as well as inside *apartments and condominiums*
-Marin County, May 23, 2012 banned in all *condos and apartments, as well as all patios within residential units*. Anyone caught smoking will face a $100 fine and will be sentenced to five community day services. A second offense warrants a $300 fine and ten community day services, and a third offense being $700 fine and fifteen community day services. Landlords may opt out of smoking restrictions by designating 20 percent of their units reserved for smoking and may permit e-cigarettes to be used inside apartments and condos. All other outdoor areas, including bar and restaurant patios, and private homes that are not of multi-unit residences and smoking in cars are exempt from the ban.
-City of Berkeley, March 26, 2008, banned on all commercially zoned sidewalks, and within 20 feet (6.1 m) of a bus stop
-Loma Linda, July 25, 2008 banned on all sidewalks, streets, common areas in shopping centers, bus stops, parks, restaurant patios, theaters, City Hall, and 80% of motel rooms and apartment units. Exempts the federally controlled VA hospital grounds, and smoking in cars traveling in the city.

If my tax dollars go to parks, then I want to be able to enjoy a stick and watch the sunset. If I can't enjoy myself at a park, then why am I paying for it?
If I pay $275k for a studio condo, I want to be able to sit on the patio and enjoy a stick.

Get a load of some of the restrictions around the country
List of smoking bans in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ChronoB (Nov 4, 2007)

> But if the cost of never having to smell cigarette smoke, and more importantly, never have my children exposed to it when we're going about our business is to ban all smoking in public indiscriminately- I'm okay with that.


Then we've already lost. I fail to see how me enjoying a pipe in the middle of a park or a designated smoking area in an indoor facility with proper air filtering rightfully bothers anyone. I'm curious. Why are you concerned with your children never being exposed to smoke? If you buy that second hand smoke is lethal or dangerous, then you must buy that third hand smoke (i.e. residue on clothes, hair, skin, walls, etc) from you is lethal or dangerous to them.


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

ChronoB said:


> No they don't include your private residences (yet). I live in the Atlanta metro area, and all the counties here (Fulton, DeKalb, Gwinnett, Cobb, etc) have similar restrictive outdoor bans.


In New York City they do!
Many that live in Apartments they have purchased or rented are unable to smoke in their residences!
That being said smoking in America are like Gun ownership the rights may be challenged but never totally abolished.


----------



## Tobias Lutz (Feb 18, 2013)

The Nothing said:


> If my tax dollars go to parks, then I want to be able to enjoy a stick and watch the sunset. If I can't enjoy myself at a park, then why am I paying for it?
> If I pay $275k for a studio condo, I want to be able to sit on the patio and enjoy a stick.


My tax dollars pay for all sorts of things, but there are parameters to there use. I'm sure I would enjoy having a few beers cooking out at the city park, but alcohol is not allowed on city park property, and I completely understand why. I wouldn't say I no longer desire to fund them since I cannot imbibe there.
I agree with you 100% regarding the condo however. If I pay $500 a month rent I feel I should be able to smoke within my domicile.



ChronoB said:


> Then we've already lost. I fail to see how me enjoying a pipe in the middle of a park or a designated smoking area in an indoor facility with proper air filtering rightfully bothers anyone. I'm curious. Why are you concerned with your children never being exposed to smoke? *If you buy that second hand smoke is lethal or dangerous, then you must buy that third hand smoke (i.e. residue on clothes, hair, skin, walls, etc) from you is lethal or dangerous to them.*


I'm not going to engage in this debate because I can tell that you are very skewed in your bias simply by the way you present this reasoning. It is very basic to understand the difference between chemical compounds that are inhaled as smoke and residual dry compounds that may remain after smoke has abated. Honestly, I think part of the problem with the perspective you present is that you have formulated an "us vs. them" mentality. It is evident in the way you say "we" have already lost. Attempting to find middle grounds for coexistence with the rest of society is not a war, it is a responsibility for all citizens within an interdependent dichotomy.

That said, I'm bowing out of this one gentlemen. As I sure you can tell, I enjoy a rigorous debate :biggrin:, but I enjoy the absence of such on these forums even more. I hope all of us can enjoy our tobacco wherever we are this evening. eace:


----------



## RupturedDuck (Jan 11, 2012)

Not having done the research, I've always wondered how the second hand smoke from someone smoking outside can be more dangerous than say, vehicular exhaust fumes, open gas cans, new asphalt, etc.

I understand how a person may believe Pipe or Cigar smoking to be more enjoyable than cigarette smoking. I cannot, however, understand how anyone could think that Pipe or Cigar smoking should be treated differently under the law than cigarette smoking.

RD


----------

